Commitments And Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

NOTE L - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

     The Company leases administrative facilities and/or manufacturing and warehouse space for its CAD segment operations in Rhode Island, U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and China. The CAD segment also leases a retail facility in the United Kingdom. The Company's COG segment leases administrative and warehouse facilities in Florida and Colorado. All leases expire prior to the end of 2017. Real estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance expenses are generally obligations of the Company. It is expected that in the ordinary course of business, leases that expire will be renewed or replaced by leases on other properties; thus, it is anticipated that future minimum lease commitments will not be less than the amounts shown for 2012. Rent expense for leased facilities was approximately $3.5 million, $3.5 million and $3.6 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. At December 31, 2011, future minimum lease payments under all such non-cancelable leases, including renewal options the Company believes it will exercise, were approximately:

(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)	2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		Thereafter		Total
	$	3,484	$	3,147	$	2,591	$	2,409	$	2,146	$	1,115	$	14,892

     The Company was named as one of approximately ninety defendants in a contribution suit brought by CCL/Unilever relating to the J.M. Mills Landfill Site (the "Site"), which is part of the Peterson/Puritan Superfund Site in Cumberland, Rhode Island. These complaints alleged that the Company was liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") for contribution for Site investigation costs. The Company has reached settlement of the case and paid a settlement amount of approximately $0.2 million in 2010.

     The Company expects that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") will select a remedy for the Site in 2012. At that time, the EPA will initiate an administrative process (the "Special Notice Process") pursuant to CERCLA whereby the EPA will request that those entities that the EPA contends arranged for the disposal of hazardous materials at the Site (the PRPs), undertake the selected remedy at the Site. The EPA contends that the Company is a PRP at the Site. During the Special Notice Process, the Company and the other PRPs will engage in negotiations with the EPA regarding the remedy, and among themselves regarding the contribution of each PRP to overall remediation costs. Neither the cost of the remedy nor the identity of all PRPs is known at this time. Therefore it is not possible to assess the outcome of the Special Notice Process as it may relate to the Company's contribution to remediation costs.

     The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") has asserted that it believes that the Company has had a triggering event under Section 4062(e) of ERISA, which, had such an event occurred, would lead to an acceleration of funding contributions to the Company's defined benefit plan. Specifically, during 2010, the PBGC has asserted that the Company closed a facility in the USA when it completed the transfer of a significant portion of its manufacturing operations offshore. The Company maintains that the facility did not close, and therefore no triggering event occurred. The Company's most recent contact with the PBGC regarding this matter was in April 2011. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company intends to ensure that its defined benefit plan remains viable and healthy and intends to continue to make all legally required contributions under the plan. The Company further believes that it has sufficient liquidity to meet any required contributions to the Plan, and in fact, has made additional voluntary contributions of $4 million to the plan since October 2011.

     The Company is involved in various other litigation and legal matters that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. To its knowledge, management believes that the ultimate resolution of any of those existing matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations.